Three Cheers for Washington?

Golly, it sure is a good thing that the House passed the "Rescue" Bill today, cuz who knows how far the market would've fallen had they not. As it is, it ended at 158 points down ...DOWN??!! Wall Street suuuure was glad to see that turd of a legislative package get passed, huh?

...What have they done?!

I suggest you buy stock in wooden arrows, and Samoan businesses. We might also dust off our torches and hayforks, and put on our walking shoes. Time for all of them to go, starting with the esteemed Congressman Frank, choreographer-in-chief of this mess.

The Political Index

Perhaps the brightest lining of this POTUS campaign cloud is that both tickets claim to be the team who will bring change (which allegedly means improvement) to our nation's capitol. So, regardless of who wins, we should at least get change...if either party is good for their word. We should all remember, 4 years from now, these claims for being the better change agents, and judge them at the voting booths in 2012. No improving changes = No 2nd term. Now, what we need is a means for measuring change. We need key indicators, like we have for the stock markets, which boil complex changes down to a single measure that indicates up, down, or flat. We need a Political Index, that factors in things like our war status, our nat'l debt, our trade balance, our energy independence, and a few other key factors. Then, when it comes time to decide whether to keep the rascals in or toss 'em, we look to the Political Index.

Honesty will get you disqualified

There's a very sad and ruinous Catch-22 going on in our politics these days...though it perhaps has always been there. No one candidate (or even their entire team of advisors) can have an answer (especially the right answer) to all questions/issues/problems they are or will be confronted with. But that certainly doesn't keep all of them from pretending to. Indeed, some supporters expect this of their candidate, and even more so of the candidates they don't support. So, if a candidate attempts to take the honest and lonesome path and admits to not having enough knowledge on a given subject, or just flat out doesn't know an answer, they are immediately judged as insufficiently experienced and therefore completely unqualified for the office they seek. Seeing this as political suicide, the candidates instead pretend to know everything about everything, which of course makes them look foolish to the observers who choose to stay connected to reality. The trick is to make yourself look more informed and honest than ignorant and dishonest. This is what we've fallen to. How do we climb back out of this to a higher ground? ...Can we?

The Sleeper President

Here's a wacky idea for an intrigue novel or movie...

A radical-religion terrorist organization with sleeper-cells in the U.S. selects, preens, and successfully supports one of their own to run for POTUS, under the guise of being a nice, eloquent, educated Christian. Against all odds, and with a rather shrouded and somewhat suspicious upbringing, he is able to climb his way up through elite higher education, then oddly veers away from the highly lucrative careers that such credentials are used for. Instead, our intrepid character moves into local, then state and eventually federal office to enjoy a short term as Senator before launching into his presidential campaign. Having a complete lack of executive experience, or any real political experience to speak of, he covers for that by simply being a minority, which wins him significant unwaivering support from those who see that as an over-riding benefit in itself. Once he secures the Oval Office, he then unleashes his sleeper initiatives, covertly and with deniabily of course. With the power of the Office and his supporters behind him, he brings down disabling havoc on the country's financial, energy, military and other critical systems, thereby setting it up for his overseas co-horts to come and have their way with the U.S. --the Great Satan.

Fortunately, this is total fiction, and could never actually be pulled off. ...Right?

Candidate Clinton: Independent

Prediction, June 3, 2008:
Faced with the likelihood that Hillary will not be able to sway sifficient delegates over to her, driven by her all-consuming hunger to take the Oval Office she will choose to leave the Democratic ticket and take up the fight as an Independent, striking a pose as the Moderate candidate.

Regardless, McCain will win the election.

McClelland: Hero or Hack?

Scott McClelland's tell-all book, What Happened, according to its author, is an attempt to change Washington politics for the better. The argument goes that the partisan bickering and undercutting must stop so that we can return to the way our capital should be run, and hopefully this book will contribute, even in some small way, towards that end. Some conclusions must be drawn from this posturing:

1. In the author's estimations, it will be well worth all the massive damage inflicted on the still sitting war-time president, by his enemies around the world using this fresh ammunition against Bush and the administration, if in the end his book helps even just a little bit to reverse some of our political divisions.
2. The author would have us believe that it is merely coincidental that the book is released in the very midst of a pivotal national election campaign. A time in which the absolute last thing any engaged member desires is reconciliation with the other side...let alone any within the same side.
3. He would have us believe that the sliver-thin difference between his precise wordings, and the accusations they are easily turned into by the other side, are unfortunate misinterpretations.
4. The author believes our political divisions are unhealthy, and need to be repaired, and that such a goal can actually be achieved and measured.
5. The book focuses on poor-judgement decisions made by the president and his advisers, and that those mistakes need to be rehashed and analyzed so as to properly learn and avoid them next time.

One must conclude that Mr. McClelland is incredibly naive, or uncontrollably altruistic, or shamelessly greedy, or unfaithful to his allegiances, or possessed of inconceivably poor judgement himself, or incapable of seeing the danger of his Monday-morning observations. I must conclude, after seeing his explanations on live TV this evening, that he is all of these at once, and that his strongest justifications are in reality none at all. This book is a colossal case of bad judgement itself. Not only will it not lead to improved relations between the political factions, but it will actual contribute significantly in the opposite direction. The political damage will have been made, the book will be tossed aside, and the author will have been forgotten by both enemy and former friend. The very best we can additionaly hope for is that the publisher will find itself stuck with a warehouse of books that nobody wants to buy. To that end, I pledge my part.

Obama the Great Unifier?

Candidate Obama claims to be the one and only who will be able to re-unite our fractured country. Assuming for the moment that we're actually in need of a national reunion, where's the evidence of his ability to do this? Has he accomplished this even within his own fractured political party? No? Well, how about then just the disunity between himself and his sole Democrat opponent. No? Even when the two disagree about so little in the first place?! Odd.

Rather than serve as a unifier, has he not actually chosen to be a divider? Has he not chosen to fabricate or exaggerate distinctions with his opponent, for the hope of political advantage? What would make you think that he, or anyone, would not resort to this same tactic once ensconced in the Oval Office. where the demand for it may only be greater?

Great Unifier? Just more Madison Ave polish.